Legal Research
Cases
Mongol v Moulin

Mongol v Moulin

Case [2022] WASC 232 25 July 2022

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   MONGOL -v- MOULIN [2022] WASC 232
CORAM:   STRK J
HEARD:   25 MARCH 2022
DELIVERED          :   25 JULY 2022
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1002 of 2022
BETWEEN:   HADI MONGOL
Appellant
AND
ANDREW MOULIN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1002 of 2022
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE D MALONE
File Number            :   FR 7332/2021

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Application to adduce additional evidence pursuant to Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) s 40(1)(e) - Whether there has been an error of law or fact - Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice - Whether the penalty imposed was excessive

Legislation:

City of Melville Parking Local Law 2016 (WA)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Code 1913 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA)
Legal Practitioner (Official Prosecutions) (Accused's Costs) Determination 2020 (WA)
Local Government Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Application to adduce additional evidence refused
Leave to appeal refused on all grounds
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr N Sloan

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	McLeods

Cases referred to in decision:

Ajayi v The Queen [2012] WASCA 126; (2012) FLR 465
Basham v City of Joondalup [2015] WASC 345
Basham v City of Joondalup [No 2] [2016] WASC 120; (2016) 258 A Crim R 451
Borino v City of Stirling [2019] WASC 13
Clements v Town of Claremont [2011] WASC 193
Clements v Town of Claremont [2011] WASCA 253
De Domenico v Mallon [2010] WASC 285
Fitas v City of Vincent [2015] WASC 329
Floyd v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 33
Genovese v City of Perth [2011] WASC 68
Genovese v City of Perth [2012] WASCA 89
Greenfield v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 29
Johnson v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 71; (2009) WAR 116
Nguyen v Comptroller‑General of Customs [2018] WASCA 170
NPK v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASCA 50
Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 218 CLR 493
Petersen v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 66; (2016) 50 WAR 45
Prazmo v Urquhart [2017] WASC 215
R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542
Rodi v City of Joondalup [2014] WASC 330
Rundle v Innerd [2015] WASC 340
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Smith v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 205; (2010) 204 A Crim R 280
Strahan v Brennan [2014] WASC 190
Tey v City of Perth [2006] WASCA 211
Tsang v Francis [2021] WASCA 131
Warnakulasuriya v The Queen [2012] WASCA 10; (2012) 261 FLR 260
WS v Gardin [2015] WASC 97; (2015) 48 WAR 494

Table of Contents

Introduction

The appeal

Grounds of appeal

The trial

The evidence before the learned Magistrate

Mr Luke Lawrence

Mr Mongol

Submissions made at trial

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mongol v Moulin

Details

AGLC: Mongol v Moulin [2022] WASC 232
Case: [2022] WASC 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mongol v Moulin [2022] WASC 232, the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an appeal against conviction and sentence. Mr Mongol was convicted of parking his vehicle on a footpath contrary to the City of Melville Parking Local Law 2016 (WA) cl 3.10(e). Mr Mongol appealed the conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by Strk J, who found that leave to appeal should be refused and the appeal dismissed. The court found that the Magistrate had not erred in convicting Mr Mongol of the offence, and that the penalty imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court also refused Mr Mongol's application to adduce additional evidence.

Orders